Develop guidance on an asset management corridor planning process to prioritize and schedule project delivery for cost effectiveness while also considering mobility/accessibility issues, drainage, and more.

Develop communication tools and methodologies for engaging stakeholders in TAM program activities such as strategies development, performance management implementation, and budget development.

Provide support to implement the data governance practices and processes recommended through NCHRP 08-115, Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management.

Develop a framework and guidance for calculating and communicating the overall benefit of improved asset management approaches to transportation agencies, transportation system users, and society of improved asset management approaches. The framework should address monetized benefits, as well as issues such as equity, sustainability, and resilience. Illustrate use of the framework and examples through a set of pilot studies of U.S. agencies.

The objectives of this research are to:
• Generate risk identification techniques to determine high risk threats at project and network levels,
• Develop quantitative, repeatable approaches for assessing likelihood and consequences for these threats,
• Develop visual, interactive characterization methods (e.g., dashboards) to reflect an agency’s level of risk and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation actions,
• Allow risk and resilience to be on par with traditional performance measures.

High risk threats to be studied include, but are not limited to, extreme events (e.g., earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes), asset failure (structural and operational), financial, strategic, political, environmental (e.g., sea level rise, flooding), technological, and social justice risks.

The final deliverables could include guidebook with a spreadsheet or a framework for assessing high risk threats and incorporating the results into TAM efforts. The guidebook should feature a comprehensive review of existing literature and current practice. It should present a standard definition of resilience as well as step-by-step instructions to develop models, methods, and metrics for estimating resilience of highway systems to high risk threats. Pilot studies should be conducted with select agencies to test the guidance and calculation procedures.

The target audience for the research results is asset management and risk-management champions at state and local government transportation agencies. The results of this project will potentially empower these individuals in convincing other decision makers in these agencies to take actions that not only align with traditional performance management objectives but also that result in lower risk and higher resilience for the whole transportation system. The results of this project can also be effective in communicating the rationale behind risk-based decisions to the general public. Due to legal implications of identifying and documenting risks, the research and final product should include advice on how to protect the agency from litigation if they cannot implement a recommended action.

Risk assessment is at the core of implementing a risk-based asset management approach. Therefore, FHWA and AASHTO view this as a subject of great importance. In addition, risk management cuts across all areas of a state DOT’s business and just about any AASHTO Committee and any state DOT and local agency could realize benefits from these research results.

The objective of this research is to:
1. Evaluate current federal pavement condition measures (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking), performance thresholds, and overall performance measure with respect to:
a. Consistency – across various pavement types, network designations, and lane configurations
b. Usefulness – in network-level pavement condition summary and asset management decision-making, prioritization, and forecasts; and
c. Alignment – with state established pavement condition metrics

2. Provide recommendations to improve existing measures and/or identify metrics that better reflect pavement failure mechanisms and enhance decision-making taking into account not
only the assessment of current and future condition but also their implications in economic analyses of long-term maintenance and rehabilitation. Evaluate pavement leading indicators as an alternative to the current version of the PM2.

3. Identify and address in detail specific challenges for each condition measure (Ride Quality, Rutting, Faulting, and Cracking) for consistency, including thresholds. For example, determine if wheel path cracking considerations could be revised to provide more consistent results across pavement types (e.g. composite, concrete) and pavement widths (e.g. <12 ft.) 4. Evaluate structural capacity indicators for potential consideration as a Federal measure.

This topic is of significant interest to AASHTO, TRB, and the DOTs, having ranked third amongst potential NCHRP topics in the recent TAM Research Prioritization conducted as part of the 2020 Mega Meeting of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management, in cooperation with the TRB Asset Management Committee (AJE30).
The following are organizations and contacts who may be interested in using the results of the research and supporting its dissemination:
• AASHTO Committee on Performance-based Management: Tim Henkel, Chair (Minnesota DOT, (651) 366-4829, [email protected]), Matt Hardy (AASHTO, (202) 624-3625, [email protected])
• AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management: Matt Haubrich, Chair (Iowa DOT, (515) 233-7902, [email protected])
• FHWA Office of Asset Management: Steve Gaj (FHWA, (202) 366-1336, [email protected]) Tim Henkel, TAM Expert Task Group Chair (see contact above)
• TRB Asset Management Committee (ABC40): Tim Henkel, Chair (see contact above)

The outcome from this effort will benefit quality assurance (QA) methods for data collection and inspection efforts, quantify the variability and sensitivity in target setting for DOTs, and help budget planning for asset inconsistencies.

• Since the performance measures are consistently tied to specific data inputs, each state could use this research to understand the potential volatility in target setting and performance measures. The summary of best practices and pitfalls will also allow transportation agencies and vendors to improve inspection protocol. Testing of the data should be a part of the research, with a few select agencies comparing potentially the same data in a single year across multiple sources or reviewing the historic trends of individual data pints to highlight inconsistencies and the impact of those inconsistencies to overall measures and targets.
• This research would best be shared in an open forum or webinar so all agencies and consultants tasked with data management can obtain the information. The AASHTO Performance Management Committee should be interested in supporting this research to ensure that the performance measures produced by transportation agencies are of the highest quality.